Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

gandalf · 23-01-2017 01:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

To quote myself..

He's a celebrity going on a tantrum because people ruined his big day. Criticise him for that all you want but seriously, comparing him to Stalin? Madness.

That doesn't mean his supporters are doing the same.. They're too busy trying to find that woman who set a Trump supporter's hair on fire during the inauguration.

What?!! I never compared him to Stalin? I think you are mixing me up with someone else :rolleyes:

23-01-2017 01:49PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I get that you like meltdowns(way to prove the people who called you an immature child wrong by the way), but why do you think that the left would have a meltdown if two individuals they tend not to like turned on each other.

I don't care if it's immature to enjoy self-righteous people meltdown, cry and riot etc. after how they treated Sanders' and Trump's supporters. I want America to fail and will happily watch Trump screw up. The TPP being cancelled will have a significant positive effect on my life (or lack of a serious negative effect), far more than any realistic negatives from his Presidency.

As for the two individuals they hate, I didn't say it clearly but what I meant was if it came out that Putin released the Trump tape and didn't hack the DNC.. A lot of the left would have to then come to terms with the fact that Hillary lost because she's Hillary, not because of Russia. They'd also have to accept that Trump is legitimate.

BabyCheeses · 23-01-2017 01:49PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump and his administration are literally Stalin or Hitler then I suppose.

If we're going down that road these would be some great questions to ask.

How much money has his administration taken from Countries who suppress Women and gays and their rights, and how many terrorist groups has his administration armed? How many foreign Governments have they toppled and how many foreign leaders have they executed?

Hallmarks of dictators, don't ya know.

The administration is republican, hardly known for women's and gay rights.

super_furry · 23-01-2017 01:52PM

It's not just that he's lying. It's that he's lying over something so pretty and insignificant and something that every single person with a pair of eyes can tell he's lying about. It makes him look utterly stupid and not even his most ardent supporter can believe him.

It's like him trying to tell the world that grass is red and being angry and making threats when people point out that it's not.

Laois_Man · 23-01-2017 01:58PM

super_furry wrote: »

It's not just that he's lying. It's that he's lying over something so pretty and insignificant and something that every single person with a pair of eyes can tell he's lying about. It makes him look utterly stupid and not even his most ardent supporter can believe him.

It's like him trying to tell the world that grass is red and being angry and making threats when people point out that it's not.

Its not even the fact that he is lying about something so stupid

To me, it's more to do with Kellyanne Conway brazingly going on CNN and threatening them saying how the White House will have to rethink our relationship with your news organization if you keep calling us liars! I've never seen the likes of it in a Western country!

Sonics2k · 23-01-2017 02:02PM

super_furry wrote: »

It's not just that he's lying. It's that he's lying over something so pretty and insignificant and something that every single person with a pair of eyes can tell he's lying about. It makes him look utterly stupid and not even his most ardent supporter can believe him.

It's like him trying to tell the world that grass is red and being angry and making threats when people point out that it's not.

Hell, it's not even the small lies really, though that was pathetic.

It's more that we can now see 100% for sure that his campaign was built on lies. He talked about "draining the swamp" and giving Government back to the people, but let's look at some of his candidates and people he's putting in charge.

Betsy DeVos in charge of Education. A woman who's family has donated approximately $200 million to the Republican party.
Two Goldman Sachs people have been appointed by Trump, even though he went on about Hilary's connection to them.
He's appointed Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, and he's a climate change denier.
One of the best is that he wants to make Rex Tillerson his Secretary of State, a multi-billionaire Oil Industrialist.

Trump went on and on about being a transparent President and the Govt would be open, but he won't even release his Tax Returns.

Literally anyone who voted for this man has been taken for a fool.

Butters1979 · 23-01-2017 02:07PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Hell, it's not even the small lies really, though that was pathetic.

It's more that we can now see 100% for sure that his campaign was built on lies. He talked about "draining the swamp" and giving Government back to the people, but let's look at some of his candidates and people he's putting in charge.

Betsy DeVos in charge of Education. A woman who's family has donated approximately $200 million to the Republican party.
Two Goldman Sachs people have been appointed by Trump, even though he went on about Hilary's connection to them.
He's appointed Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, and he's a climate change denier.
One of the best is that he wants to make Rex Tillerson his Secretary of State, a multi-billionaire Oil Industrialist.

Trump went on and on about being a transparent President and the Govt would be open, but he won't even release his Tax Returns.

Literally anyone who voted for this man has been taken for a fool.

I think most who voted for him are still very happy they did.

The Backwards Man · 23-01-2017 02:07PM

I think someone has taken the helm at his Twitter account, last two tweets contain no exclamation marks.

!!

BabyCheeses · 23-01-2017 02:13PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I think someone has taken the helm at his Twitter account, last two tweets contain no exclamation marks.

!!

There was one about people exercising their right to protest. It was clearly not from Trump himself considering it was a full proper sentence.

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 02:14PM

seamus wrote: »

I agree that politicians do lie all the time. Speaking out both sides of their mouths, clever wordplay, etc etc.

Bare-faced lies - saying things which are absolute mistruths - are far rarer, and usually reserved for dictatorial regimes like NK or Russia, where the media can be controlled.

Obama's administration blamed the the Benghazi attack on an internet video when they knew (proven in congress hearing) it was a planned terrorist attack in the run up to an upcoming election to save face.

He said the Fast and Furious gun running scandal started in Bushes administration.

He lied about knowing of the email server, Wikileaks dump showed he had an account and there was a subsequent cleanup of his emails.

Another pure lie about Capitol Janitors receiving a pay cut

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sequester-spin-obamas-incorrect-claim-of-capitol-janitors-receiving-a-pay-cut/2013/03/01/3407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html?utm_term=.d180dbf4fc58

To suggest bare faced lies are reserved for places like North Korea is wrong. You only have to look at the all the instances HRC lied about the email server prior to her hearing to get another 10 examples of "Bare-Faced lies".

Trump is silly for getting into a spat over something meaningless, but it certainty doesn't put him into a category of his own as you're trying to imply.

Little CuChulainn · 23-01-2017 02:15PM

Butters1979 wrote: »

I think most who voted for him are still very happy they did.

And that's the problem. The damage he will do is long term. Many people won't see it straight away, unless they have to go to a hospital.

Grayson · 23-01-2017 02:19PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I understand why people think he's bad, what I don't understand is the comparisons to Castro, Hitler and Stalin. If people want a serious conversation back and fourth they're not going to get it with such statements.

And for the record, there's zero proof linking Russia to Wikileaks, and even Obama admitted a few days ago they don't have proof of that either.

The comparison to Hitler is valid. To an extent.
The reason is that there were two key aspects to the nazi's appeal.

1) Demonise particular groups. (jews/muslims, socialists& Liberals/ communists)
2) say that you need a strong leader who will come in a sort everything out.

Both were populist politicians who created a cult of personality around themselves.

The_Valeyard · 23-01-2017 02:19PM

gandalf wrote: »

No you were saying the protesters message was being drowned out. I disagreed not only did they get full coverage from the press, because the numbers were seen as an issue for the new administration they then gave the protests additional coverage comparing their numbers with the numbers at the inauguration. They therefore magnified their coverage. If the Trump admin ignored the figures and just carried on they would have avoided that comparison and saved themselves a lot of grief and maintained their credibility.

Yet no one is talking about the protests, they are all talking about Trump V Obama numbers, so you are wrong.

jimmycrackcorm · 23-01-2017 02:22PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

People in this thread are calling Trump, Hitler and Stalin reincarnated ignoring the foreign policy and destruction the previous administrations have caused as recent as the past 12 years. Trump has campaigned on staying out of foreign territory and cleaning up the mess of ISIS that was formed by Obama's administration. Utter hypocrisy imo.

I don't know how he is going to clean up ISIS without sending the military into foreign territory.

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 02:24PM

Grayson wrote: »

The comparison to Hitler is valid. To an extent.
The reason is that there were two key aspects to the nazi's appeal.

1) Demonise particular groups. (jews/muslims, socialists& Liberals/ communists)
2) say that you need a strong leader who will come in a sort everything out.

Both were populist politicians who created a cult of personality around themselves.

You don't think Trump supporters have been demonized so?

I don't want to get into an argument about race but I could spin what you wrote around to suit an opposite viewpoint.

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 02:32PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't know how he is going to clean up ISIS without sending the military into foreign territory.

What he campaigned on was not seeking to overthrow foreign Governments or getting involved in areas where was they no reason to be there. I don't recall the figure but I think it was 6 Trillion spent in the middle east, he's repeated that since the primaries. Obviously trying to wipe out ISIS will be a mountain of difficulties but I can draw a distinction between what he's said and how previous administrations have acted in places like the middle east.

gandalf · 23-01-2017 02:35PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Yet no one is talking about the protests, they are all talking about Trump V Obama numbers, so you are wrong.

A search on google using the term "womens march protests USA" for any new results in the past hour shows seven pages of results that seems a fairly healthy level of discourse.

No one is really discussing it on this thread on boards because the subject matter is the Orange chosen one :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty · 23-01-2017 02:39PM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

What he campaigned on was not seeking to overthrow foreign Governments or getting involved in areas where was they no reason to be there. I don't recall the figure but I think it was 6BN spent in the middle east, he's repeated that since the primaries. Obviously trying to wipe out ISIS will be a mountain of difficulties but I can draw a distinction between what he's said and how previous administrations have acted in places like the middle east.

Putting aside previous admins, how exactly do you think President Trump will fulfill his pledge to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth?

Butters1979 · 23-01-2017 02:39PM

Grayson wrote: »

The comparison to Hitler is valid. To an extent.
The reason is that there were two key aspects to the nazi's appeal.

1) Demonise particular groups. (jews/muslims, socialists& Liberals/ communists)
2) say that you need a strong leader who will come in a sort everything out.

Both were populist politicians who created a cult of personality around themselves.

1) Demonise particular groups. Like trump supporters and right wingers. All racist misogynist fascists.
2) say that you need a strong leader who will come in a sort everything out. As opposed to saying you don't want a strong leader and you don't want them to do anything?

The comparison is not valid, it's a liberal reaction to someone who disagrees with them.

gandalf · 23-01-2017 02:40PM

Butters1979 wrote: »

1) Demonise particular groups. Like trump supporters and right wingers. All racist misogynist fascists.
2) say that you need a strong leader who will come in a sort everything out. As opposed to saying you don't want a strong leader and you don't want them to do anything?

The comparison is not valid, it's a liberal reaction to someone who disagrees with them.

Naw that's Alternative Hitler

Grayson · 23-01-2017 02:42PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You don't think Trump supporters have been demonized so?

I don't want to get into an argument about race but I could spin what you wrote around to suit an opposite viewpoint.

You could try but it would be a big stretch of imagination to think that groups that campaign against discrimination are demonising a group of people based on who they are. The left dislikes people based not on who they are but what they are trying to do and what their beliefs are.

(not the above is a generalisation. You obviously can't say that everyone who's left follows the same exact set of beliefs. The same can't be said of trump supporters either. We could both pick an example of someone who's different but it wouldn't prove a point).

And when I say Trump supporters I don't mean people who voted for him. I'm sure there are plenty of people who voted for him because he wasn't Clinton. Just as a number of Clinton votes came from people who didn't like Clinton but disliked Trump more.
When I say Trump supporters I mean people who would have voted for him no matter who else was on the ballot.

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 02:42PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Putting aside previous admins, how exactly do you think President Trump will fulfill his pledge to eliminate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth?

Not arming them would be a start.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/807265166236774400

Professor Moriarty · 23-01-2017 02:47PM

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Not arming them would be a start.

You do realise that she is a Democrat? And that tweet is dated last year? So nothing to do with President Trump. Previous admins aside, how exactly is Trump going to fulfill his pledge to eradicate Islamic terrorism?

dudara · 23-01-2017 02:49PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I think someone has taken the helm at his Twitter account, last two tweets contain no exclamation marks.

!!

The recent tweets from the @POTUS account are far more in line with the tone & style you'd expect from a president. That is good to see

Wonder how long they'll keep him under control

The Backwards Man · 23-01-2017 02:51PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Not arming them would be a start.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/807265166236774400

Think of the manufacturing jobs Hank. Do you know how many people are employed by arms companies in the US?

America First!

darkpagandeath · 23-01-2017 02:54PM

super_furry wrote: »

The mental gymnastics people are jumping through here so that can allow themselves to believes Trump's lies, when their eyes tell them them truth, is scary.

I thought the press lad lied ? Would that be a lie saying Trump said it ?

gandalf · 23-01-2017 02:54PM

dudara wrote: »

The recent tweets from the @POTUS account are far more in line with the tone & style you'd expect from a president. That is good to see

Wonder how long they'll keep him under control

By not allowing him to post on it directly! It's obvious it is now being managed. The interesting thing is how long that will last. Not long I hope, looking forward to the next meltdown

Hank Scorpio · 23-01-2017 02:54PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You do realise that she is a Democrat? And that tweet is dated last year? So nothing to do with President Trump. Previous admins aside, how exactly is Trump going to fulfill his pledge to eradicate Islamic terrorism?

I know she's a democrat, one of the few who seems to have her head screwed on properly.

If you don't think her trying to get that law passed is a result of Obama's regime ending and Trump winning what else is there to say? She was one of the first to meet with Trump to discuss policy.

gandalf · 23-01-2017 02:55PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I thought the press lad lied ? Would that be a lie saying Trump said it ?

Well Spicer isn't Hilarys Press Secretary is he?

darkpagandeath · 23-01-2017 02:56PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The lawsuit today has some heavy-hitting constitutional lawyers behind it including Laurence Tribe and other former-Presidential ethics advisers.

Make no mistake though the devil is in the detail of the lawsuit.

The true aim isn't to get Trump on the Emoluments issue. It's that part of the lawsuit alludes to his tax returns and that's what they are really after. It's a trojan horse lawsuit to get his tax returns either through Discovery or another means.

It may stick too. If he releases his tax returns he's likely an impeachment risk if they dig into them. He's a con-man with ties everywhere.

Cant see it getting anywhere. Would leave all administrations open to legality. You would have to hold them up to the same ideal. Like Barry and lying about closing Guantanam for example. Or Hillary and the uranium money.

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments